Table 1.
Demographic characteristics for experimental and control group
| Variable | Unit | Total sample | Experimental Group | Control group |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Average age |
Year |
31.51 |
29.47 |
36.33 |
|
S.D. |
|
10.31 |
10.45 |
13.92 |
|
Marital status | ||||
| Married |
% |
45.7 |
44.3 |
50.0 |
| Unmarried |
% |
52.1 |
52.8 |
50.0 |
| Widowed |
% |
1.1 |
1.4 |
0 |
| Divorced |
% |
1.1 |
1.4 |
0 |
|
Years of driving* (Average) |
Year |
11.15 |
9.7 |
14.46 |
|
S.D. |
|
10.31 |
9.11 |
12.24 |
|
No cigarettes smoking |
% |
82% |
81% |
85% |
|
Education level* | ||||
| 0–9 |
% |
9.0 |
5.71 |
16.66 |
| 10–12 |
% |
60.0 |
62.9 |
43.33 |
| Professional Diploma |
% |
7.0 |
11.43 |
10.00 |
| 16+ |
% |
24.0 |
20.00 |
30.0 |
|
Income* | ||||
| Under Average |
% |
52.00 |
48.6 |
60.00 |
| About Average |
% |
16.0 |
21.4 |
3.4 |
| Above Average |
% |
20.0 |
18.6 |
23.3 |
| No answer |
% |
12.0 |
11.4 |
13.3 |
|
Work status | ||||
| Salaried employee |
% |
57.0 |
61.4 |
46.7 |
| Self-employed |
% |
13.0 |
12.8 |
13.3 |
| Unemployed |
% |
6.0 |
2.9 |
13.3 |
| Pensioner |
% |
1.0 |
0 |
3.3 |
| Housewife |
% |
6.0 |
4.3 |
10 |
| Student |
% |
17.0 |
18.6 |
13.4 |
|
Average number of cars in the household |
Cars |
1.85 |
1.83 |
1.87 |
|
S.D. |
|
1.24 |
1.23 |
1.19 |
|
Household size (average) |
Persons |
5.25 |
5.4 |
5.07 |
|
S.D. |
|
2.00 |
3.53 |
1.89 |
|
Availability of car for your use | ||||
| Yes |
% |
68.1 |
68.6 |
70.0 |
| No |
% |
28.7 |
31.4 |
20.0 |
| Sometimes | % | 3.2 | 0.0 | 10.0 |
Here is a sample which included both the experimental and control groups. It consisted of 100 participants, whose ages ranged from 19 to 60 years (mean = 31.51; S.D = 10.31). 45.7% were married. Data analysis shows that the percentage of participants with a graduate degree (B.A., Master’s, Ph.D., or equivalent) was 24%. Most striking is that the income of 52% of the participants was below average (while the average is 8,300 Shekels per month), and 57% were salaried employees. Most of the participants (72.1%) found work outside the town; the average number of cars in the household was 1.85 (s.d = 1.24), and not surprisingly, 68.1% of the participants had a car for their use. All the participants possessed a driving license. Table 1. showed no statistical significant effect between EG and CG, for the following variables: years of driving, education and income. P-value (p = 0.284; p = 0.690 and p = 0.503 respectively).